ADVANCES

IN MAGNETIC
PIPELINE
INSPECTION
Chuck Harris,
T.D. Williamson, Inc., USA,
explains how advances
in spiral technology are
providing superior defect
sizing and classification.
T
odays pipeline owners and operators are under
intensive fiscal and regulatory pressure to ensure
that their lines operate safely and efficiently. As
a result, the need for accurate, reliable pipeline
assessment is greater than ever. Through effective integrity
management programmes (IMP), operators continue
to discover and mitigate new integrity threats to their
systems, and differing technologies must be run in order
to locate those various threats. And, as more pipelines
are constructed, made piggable and other existing lines

Re-printed from
August
World Pipelines
are integrated into IMPs, the ability to inspect them as
resourcefully as possible is critical. The days when an
inline inspection (ILI) tool was able to yield just one set
of data per run are a thing of the past. Throughout the
last decade, deformation and magnetic flux leakage
(MFL) tools run in tandem became the standard means of
providing operational efficiency to both pipeline operator
and ILI service provider. This article will describe how T.D.
Williamson, Inc. (TDW) has advanced the multiple dataset
concept to a complete platform for comprehensive
assessment of pipelines.
Enhanced accuracy
Depending on the type of threat, a number of inspection
technologies are beneficial for assessing pipeline integrity.
One such method is the MFL principle, which relies upon
magnets to saturate the pipe wall in the axial direction
while sensors oriented in the field detect leakage
that indicates metal loss. Refer to Figure 1 to review a
model depicting application of this principle. The results
generated by using the MFL method have made it the
industrys most widely used ILI technology for metal loss
and detection of other types of volumetric anomalies. As
noted in Types of ILI tools and inspection purposes in
NACE SP0102-2010, however, all ILI technologies have
limitations. MFL technology is no exception. Because
magnetism is introduced into the pipeline longitudinally,
abnormalities (such as those in the seam-weld) running
in parallel with the magnetic field may not be detected.
Figure 2 provides a graphical review of MFL limitations
based on the pipeline operator forum (POF) specifications
and requirements for intelligent pig inspection of
pipelines. Wide features such as pitting and general
corrosion, and circumferential slotting and grooving are
easily detected. There are, however, limitations when
it comes to detecting axial slotting and some grooving
geometries.
Understanding the limitations of traditional MFL, the
ILI industry saw an opportunity to create a solution for
detecting longitudinally oriented anomalies. The answer
was to alter the MFL technique to develop what has
become known as circumferential magnetic flux leakage
(CMFL). By inducing magnetism circumferentially rather
than axially, the CMFL tool provided a solution to the
limitations posed by traditional MFL. Magnetism bisects
the axial plane, thus creating leakage in the magnetic field
and allowing for the detection of longitudinally oriented
anomalies. This approach does, however, require a
second offset magnetiser due to the blind areas created
by induction of magnetism 90 to the pipe wall. Figure
3 offers a representation of this technology application;
notice the lack of coverage where the magnets are
located, thus requiring the trailing magnetiser. Although
CMFL detects crack-like features in long seams, other
characteristics in the seam may be misrepresented,
giving rise to concerns about data accuracy. Referring
again to NACE SP0102-2010, CMFL, while useful for
seam assessments, has its own constraints. Figure 4
Figure 1. Traditional MFL inducing magnetism in the axial or
longitudinal direction.
Figure 2. Graphical presentation of axial MFL limitations based
on the POF. Geometries inside the blue-shaded area represent
successful detection.
Figure 3. CMFL inducing magnetism around circumference.
Second magnetiser required to achieve 100% coverage.

Re-printed from
August
World Pipelines
offers a graphical review of CMFL limitations based on
the POF. In this case, there are gaps in circumferential
slotting and other volumetric features that MFL does an
excellent job of locating, while detection of axial slotting
and grooving anomalies becomes possible.
While pipeline owners and operators utilise ILI
technologies to ensure the integrity of their pipeline
systems, running multiple tools can be time-consuming
and can have a significant impact on operations. With
advances in electronics, storage media, and inspection
technologies, it is now feasible to gather numerous
sets of data in a single inspection. Merging multiple
technologies overcomes the limitations present when
using separate tools and minimises operational impacts.
TDW has developed a new approach to inspecting the
longitudinal axis of the pipe. It relies on a spiral - or
oblique - magnetic field in what is known as spiral
magnetic flux leakage (SMFL). Figure 5 illustrates
the SMFL magnetiser. Magnetism is induced at a 45
angle, which bisects the axial plane. The SMFL tool
delivers the same full-wall coverage as the CMFL. The
advantage is in the single compact magnetiser, which
can easily be combined with other technologies, such
as MFL and deformation, to eliminate the inherent
limitations as described in NACE SP0102-2010 when
using separate technologies.
Multiple datasets produced in one run =
greater efficiency
SMFL is a much more compact design than other
longitudinal axis assessment options, so it is easily
combined with high-resolution MFL technology to
overcome the limitations of CMFL. Figure 6 offers a
graphical presentation of detection and characterisation
advantages of MFL+SMFL based on the POF. The
benefits of this multiple dataset approach are the ability
to a) overcome the gaps created by each independent
technology and b) use the overlap to provide enhanced
characterisation and identification of anomalies
detected by all datasets. By incorporating various
inspection technologies onto one tool, many types of
data can be collected in a single run, making reported
results significantly more accurate. To illustrate,
pairing SMFL and MFL allows for traditional external
and internal metal loss assessment, quantification of
longitudinal defects in the pipe body and accurate
classification of seam-weld anomalies.
In addition, the MFL+SMFL platform is run in
conjunction with other technologies, including high
resolution deformation (DEF) for locating, sizing
and determining orientation of diameter reductions
or expansions. Plus, proximity (IDOD) sensors are
installed on deformation arms in order to determine
internal or external metal loss classifications and
internal surface details. Low-field or residual sensors
are also employed to detect hard spots, the halo-
effect created by dent re-rounding, and other
flaws. Figure 7 depicts the multiple dataset tool
Figure 6. Graphical presentation of detection and
characterisation advantages of MFL+SMFL based on the POF.
Figure 5. Spiral MFL magnetiser depicting complete coverage
of the pipe wall for inspection of the longitudinal axis with a
single magnetiser.
Figure 4. Graphical review of CMFL limitations based on the POF.
Geometries inside the green-shaded area represent successful
detection.

Re-printed from
August
World Pipelines
platform: SMFL+DEF+IDOD+MFL+RES. There is no
wasted space, as all canisters include some form
of measurement system. The drive section contains
odometer wheels, second is the SMFL magnetiser, the
third section contains deformation measurement (DEF)
and IDOD sensors, fourth is the MFL magnetiser, followed
by the residual unit (RES).
Inspecting a pipeline with a number of technologies
achieves two things. First, it improves detection by
providing more opportunities for a defect or anomaly
to be discovered. Second, after an anomaly has
been detected, use of multiple technologies makes
characterisation more accurate. Armed with multiple
views of an anomaly gleaned from a single inspection
run, analysts have a more comprehensive view of a
pipeline than ever before. The result? Pipeline operators
receive superior results included in one final report,
which provides enhanced anomaly characterisation and
eliminates unnecessary excavations.
Inspection results confirm benefits
Results of recent inspections conducted by TDW
confirm the benefits of using MFL+SMFL technology;
overcoming the limitations present when running separate
technologies, and using overlap to provide enhanced
characterisation and identification of anomalies. Figure
8 offers an example of an anomaly detected in the long
seam that is not crack-like or planar. The SMFL data
clearly reveals a metal loss feature in the seam-weld.
Upon reviewing the MFL data from the same inspection
an indication is also present in the exact position. In
fact, the signature in MFL is more typical of a mill-related
anomaly than metal loss. According to technology
limitations, any feature detected by MFL must have
significant width, and therefore the case presented
here confirms that this anomaly cannot be crack-like or
possible crack-like. Had only CMFL technology been
used to assess this pipeline, this feature would have been
reported as crack-like or possible crack-like in the long
seam. As such, the pipeline operator would have been
required to excavate, only to discover that the feature
was, in fact, not a planar anomaly.
In Figures 9a and 9b, three distinct anomalies
located in the electric resistance welded (ERW) seam are
apparent. Upon examination of SMFL data, the analyst
noted three seam-weld features in the same pipe joint.
During analyst review of the MFL data, it was confirmed
that no corresponding indications exist. As such, these
Figure 7. SMFL+DEF+IDOD+MFL+RES multi-dataset tool.
Figure 8. Example of seam anomaly confirmed via MFL not
to be planar or crack-like. SMFL data reveals anomaly in the
ERW seam. MFL shows an indication in the same position with
mill anomaly characteristics. CMFL would report as crack-like
or possible crack-like.
Figure 9a. SMFL data on the right reveals three distinct seam
weld anomalies. Upon review of MFL data from the same run
these anomalies are confirmed to be planar; no indications
exist in MFL.
Figure 9b. The planar or crack-like anomalies correctly reported
through use of multiple dataset technology and confirmed
by field verifications. Magnetic particle was required for visual
inspection. NDE results are included in Table 1 (anomalies 1,
2 and 3 are pictured here from left to right). Reported versus
field results were highly accurate and well within the stated
tolerances of the technology.

Re-printed from
August
World Pipelines
features have no significant width, which means they are
reported as planar or crack-like. Excavations validated
the reported findings. Each location was identified in the
seam within the joint via non destructive evaluation (NDE).
Visual inspection of these indications could only be done
through use of magnetic particle testing (MT). Reported
versus field results provided in Table 1 reveal that they
were highly accurate and well within the stated tolerances
of the technology. Through use of multiple MFL techniques,
guesswork is eliminated in anomaly classification.
Evolving technology
From the outset, TDWs objective was to create an
alternative system for seam-weld inspections utilising a
single magnetiser with the specific purpose of combining
multiple technologies and multi datasets to achieve
superior results over CMFL. Our SMFL+MFL+DEF+RES
multi dataset inspection systems have exceeded our
expectations in terms of defect characterisation and
sizing accuracies, said Scott Dauzat, Manager of Market
Development for TDWs Pipeline Integrity Solutions. The
excavation feedback has definitely proven our concept
for seam-weld inspections. Additional benefits are still
evolving, such as dent prioritisation and dent strain
analysis utilising our residual field sensors and high
resolution deformation sensors. When a single inspection
can provide sizing and characterisation for any defect
Table 1. NDE results
As reported As found
Anomaly no. WT (in.) Depth (% wall) Length (in.) Width (in.) Depth (% wall) Length (in.) Width (in.)
1 0.250 19 4.3 0.05 16 5.5 (Linear)
2 0.250 29 2.4 0.07 14 2.9 (Linear)
3 0.250 15 7.4 0.08 16 7.8 (Linear)
visible to MFL or SMFL, as well as locating mechanical
damage regardless of dent size or depth, the benefits
to our customers are readily apparent, he added. TDW
clients have realised tremendous savings by eliminating
unnecessary excavations because data analysts can
confidently distinguish defect orientation (axial or
circumferential), location, sizing, geometry, and volumetric
vs. planar (corrosion vs. crack-like), among others.
Looking ahead
To date, SMFL technology, which is always run in
tandem with MFL and other technologies, has been
utilised to successfully inspect more than 1300 miles of
pipeline. The ability to fully characterise an anomaly
whether hard spots, metal loss, axial gouging, narrow
axial corrosion, seam defects or other longitudinal
anomalies using the multiple dataset platform
increases inspection accuracy, efficiency and eliminates
unnecessary, costly excavations. For pipeline owners
and operators around the world, the benefits in terms of
maintaining pipeline integrity efficiently and effectively
are far-reaching. In addition to mileage inspected
to date, there are more than 1000 miles of multiple
dataset/SMFL inspection projects scheduled to take
place during the next two quarters, an indication that
the pipeline industry has been quick to embrace this
valuable technology.

Re-printed from
August
World Pipelines